[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26231-26233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
                    ANITA HILL AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you come to the 
floor in a moment of personal privilege and you come because you feel 
compelled to speak to those and for those whose voices cannot be heard 
in this forum. And today I do such a task, and the task involves more 
than a decade-old allegation that now has been reignited, given new 
life through the memoirs of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
  Everyone has a right to defend themselves and to express the concerns 
that they may have regarding their reputation. All of us do. But I 
think it is important to take issue with the broad media coverage that 
Justice Thomas has secured over these days with an intent, it seems, to 
malign, if you will, the words, the testimony, and the truth told by 
Anita Hill.
  Though over 4 decades have passed since title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, sex, 
color, national origin, or religion, a glance at today's New York Times 
reminds us that workforce harassment is, unfortunately, still raising 
its ugly head.
  I am, frankly, offended by the attempt by Justice Thomas to suggest 
that Ms. Hill was not telling the truth. I do so because, of course, in 
the forum that he utilizes, Ms. Hill is not able to answer her accuser.
  In listening to an interview that Ms. Hill did, she emphasizes that 
she was telling the truth, that there was, in her opinion and others 
who were witnesses, the same. But I really wonder why we would have to 
condemn the idea that sexual harassment does not occur and why, in 
trying to suggest that it doesn't occur, we would have to malign a 
person's actions or personality with such phrase as: Well, what was she 
like? Well, she could defend herself. The sentence was not finished. 
Defend herself against what? Suggesting that she was not the demure, 
religious, conservative person, I guess, that maybe she was alleged to 
have portrayed during those hearings before the Senate.
  I didn't see any of that. I saw a young, energetic, but yet quiet, 
frightened, and intending-to-tell-the-truth young woman. I saw a young 
woman with courage who refused to back down in spite of the lights of 
all the world.
  Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is alive and well. You can ask some of 
my constituents at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, TX. You can ask 
individuals who have called my office who have indicated that that is 
what is occurring to them in the workplace.
  Ms. Hill's actions during that time were brave. To bring them up and 
drag her through the mud again in 2007 with little opportunity for her, 
a professor in Oklahoma, to have the same kind of hearing is unfair and 
does a great disservice to the work that women have done, that the 
National Organization of Women has done, and that so many Members of 
Congress have done, who have tried to bring equality to women.
  The controversy raised national awareness about sexual harassment in 
the workplace, with the number of sexual harassment complaints received 
by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission spiking from 6,127 in 
1991 to 15,342 in 1996. Why? Because women felt that at last someone 
had broken the glass ceiling and they could speak up.
  The American Association of University Women reported that, according 
to a 2002 study of 8th to 11th grade students, 83 percent of girls and 
78 percent of boys have been sexually harassed. So it crosses gender.
  I believe a Supreme Court Justice should not have taken the 
opportunity in a public forum to give disdain to that which we are now 
trying to overcome. So I want to put into the Record, Mr. Speaker, the 
New York Times op-ed by Anita Hill, ``The Smear This Time,'' and I 
would simply ask, Mr. Speaker, that we would recognize that sexual 
harassment is alive and well and that Anita Hill should not be the 
scapegoat for someone else trying to repair their reputation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss an issue that continues to 
plague our society: sexual harassment. Though over four decades have 
passed since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited 
employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, 
or religion, a glance at today's New York Times reminds us that 
workplace harassment is, unfortunately, still rearing its ugly head in

[[Page 26232]]

our society. I am extremely concerned about sexual harassment, which 
statistics indicate remains pervasive in the United States, as well as 
the rest of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, though the phrase ``sexual harassment'' was coined in 
the 1970s, it came to the forefront of our national conscience in 1991, 
with the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas's nomination to the 
Supreme Court. Anita Hill, then a law professor at the University of 
Oklahoma, alleged that Thomas sexually harassed her during her tenure 
as his assistant at the U.S. Department of Education and then on his 
legal staff at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 
Despite her testimony before the Senate, Thomas was eventually 
confirmed by a narrow 52-48 margin.
  As Ms. Hill writes in today's New York Times, ``The question of 
whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on 
the table--it was settled by the Senate back in 1991.'' And yet, Mr. 
Thomas has chosen to use his prestige and his position to once again 
launch an attack against Ms. Hill, again blaming the victim of his 
alleged harassment. In his recently published book ``My Grandfather's 
Son'', for which Thomas has received a reported $1.5 million, Thomas 
smears Ms. Hill's name, not only calling her testimony lies, but also 
personally attacking her, describing her as ``touchy and apt to 
overact,'' and her job performance as ``mediocre.'' In recent 
interviews surrounding the publication of his book, Thomas has gone 
even farther, questioning her political views as well as her religious 
convictions, stating on the TV show ``60 Minutes'', ``She was not the 
demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that Justice Thomas has once again 
victimized Ms. Hill, now a professor of social policy, law and women's 
studies at Brandeis University and a visiting scholar at the Newhouse 
Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College. Not only is this yet 
another case of blaming the victim of abuse, it sets a dangerous 
precedent of reversing the substantial progress toward combating sexual 
harassment that we have made since 1991. As Ms. Hill eloquently writes, 
``Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice's vitriolic pursuit 
of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their 
rights.'' Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is already grossly 
underreported, and this underreporting will only worsen if the women 
and men who are victimized are made afraid of decades of retribution, 
such as Ms. Hill continues to face, should they speak up about the 
abuse.
  Ms. Hill's bravery in standing up before the Senate and the country 
in 1991 and sharing her experiences has led to a number of positive 
repercussions. The controversy raised national awareness about sexual 
harassment in the workplace, with the number of sexual harassment 
complaints received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) spiking from 6,127 in 1991 to 15,342 in 1996. Recent years have 
seen the number of sexual harassment cases hovering around 15,000, and 
in FY 2006 the EEOC reported 12,025 charges of sexual harassment.
  However, these numbers cannot even begin to illustrate the reality of 
sexual harassment. According to a 2004 study, 35 percent of women and 
17 percent of men surveyed reported being sexually harassed. Sexual 
harassment is pervasive in our educational system, with the American 
Association of University Women reporting that, according to a 2002 
study of 8th-11th grade students, 83 percent of girls and 78 percent of 
boys have been sexually harassed. The same organization also conducted 
a study of university students in 2006, finding that 62 percent of 
college women and 61 percent of college men report harassment, while 31 
percent of university students admit to sexually harassing someone 
else. Despite progress toward addressing this serious issue, our 
children remain extremely vulnerable to harassment.
  Sexual harassment also remains distressingly prevalent in our 
military. Women have become an integral part of our Nation's armed 
services, and they now fill 15 percent of military ranks worldwide. 
After a series of sex scandals in the 1990s, the United States military 
has made a conscientious effort to address this ongoing problem. The 
military now holds regular workshops on preventing sexual harassment, 
and each battalion has a designated Equal Opportunity representative 
trained to respond to any complaints.
  However, with unprecedented numbers of women deployed to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, recent complaints by female veterans of these conflicts 
have indicated that a great deal more must be done. To date, over 
160,000 female soldiers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as 
compared with the 7,500 who served in Vietnam and the 41,000 who were 
dispatched to the gulf war in the early '90s One of every 10 U.S. 
soldiers in Iraq is female. According to Army studies, female solders 
in Iraq suffer from post traumatic stress disorder at twice the rate of 
their male counterparts, with 16 percent of female soldiers meeting the 
criteria for PTSD, as opposed to 8 percent of male soldiers. Women 
returning from conflict must not only deal with the psychological 
remnants of the conflict, many also have experienced harassment by 
their male counterparts.
  Mr. Speaker, the courageous recent testimony of several female Iraq 
veterans indicates that the military's new measures have not been 
successful in eliminating sexual harassment. A study funded by the 
Veterans' Administration after the first gulf war suggested that the 
rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. 
Unfortunately, a number of female Iraq veterans interviewed earlier 
this year by the New York Times spoke of a pervasive sense that 
reporting sexual crimes was not worthwhile. This is confirmed by 
Department of Defense statistics, which indicate that while 3,038 
investigations of military sexual assault were completed in 2004 and 
2005, only 329, or about one-tenth, of these cases resulted in a court-
martial.
  Sexual harassment is not confined to our Armed Forces. Though Ms. 
Hill's courageous testimony served as a flash point to illuminate the 
serious problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, the over 12,000 
complaints that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission heard last 
year clearly indicate that this problem has not been adequately 
addressed. Though the provision in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 that prohibits employment discrimination based on gender was 
originally written to protect women, I believe it is extremely 
important to highlight the fact that men too are victims of sexual 
harassment. In fact, recent years have shown a rapid increase in the 
number of men reporting sexual harassment, from 9 percent of the cases 
received by the equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1992 to 15.4 
percent in 2006. This is not just the case in the United States; a 2006 
study by the government of the United Kingdom indicated that two-fifths 
of all sexual harassment victims are male. If we are to adequately 
address this ongoing problem in our society, I believe it is extremely 
important that we recognize that sexual harassment is perpetrated by 
both men and women, and victimizes individuals of both genders.
  Mr. Speaker, much has changed since 1991. After the controversy 
surrounding Justice Thomas's confirmation was decided by a Senate that 
was 98 percent male, 1992 saw the election of a record number of female 
candidates to public office, including a number of women to the Senate. 
Subsequently dubbed the ``Year of the Woman,'' the 1992 elections were, 
according to many commentators, a direct reaction to Justice Thomas's 
nomination and confirmation. Women have since continued to become 
increasingly involved in politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are on the right track. The Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission reports that the number of sexual 
harassment cases has doubled in recent years, and of the 12,025 cases 
the commission received in fiscal year 2006, 11,936 were resolved, and 
victims were awarded $48.8 million in monetary benefits. This is an 
enormous increase from total awards of $7.7 million in 1991 and $27.8 
million in 1996.
  If this progress is to continue, the women, and men as well, who are 
victims of sexual harassment must be encouraged to come forward. What 
Anita Hill did in 1991 was incredibly brave; she stood in the face of 
the powerful to tell the truth about abuses she faced. I am appalled to 
see Justice Thomas use his prestige and his recent book to lash out, 
once again, at Ms. Hill. Though over 15 years have passed, and Justice 
Thomas's position in the Supreme Court is not under threat, he 
continues to use his pulpit to the detriment of efforts to end sexual 
harassment.
  Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is real, it remains an unfortunate 
part of our society, and we must do far more to combat it. Anita Hill 
concludes her article by stating, ``questions remain about how we will 
resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in 
the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these 
issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core 
of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas's latest fusillade 
will not divert us from that path.'' I sincerely share Ms. Hill's hope.

                          The Smear This Time

                            (By Anita Hill)

       Waltham, Mass. On Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my 
     experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas's at the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission.
       I stand by my testimony.

[[Page 26233]]

       Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he 
     wishes in his new memoir, ``My Grandfather's Son.'' He may 
     even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process 
     that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
       But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his 
     anger, to reinvent me.
       In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the 
     Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a 
     litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears 
     that Republican senators made about me when I testified 
     before the Judiciary Committee--that I was a ``combative 
     left-winger'' who was ``touchy'' and prone to overreacting to 
     ``slights.'' A number of independent authors have shown those 
     attacks to be baseless. What's more, their reports draw on 
     the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas's 
     behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It's no 
     longer my word against his.
       Justice Thomas's characterization of me is also hobbled by 
     blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was 
     a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government 
     only because he had ``given it'' to me. He ignores the 
     reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, 
     having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which 
     he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the 
     District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the 
     nation.
       In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for 
     him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law 
     firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development 
     informed Mr. Thomas's mentor, Senator John Danforth of 
     Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. 
     Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was ``asked to leave'' the 
     firm.
       It's worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, 
     but twice while he was in the Reagan administration--first at 
     the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly 
     for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to 
     begin my teaching career.
       In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my 
     religious conviction, telling ``60 Minutes'' this weekend, 
     ``She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that 
     they portrayed.'' Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he 
     wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law 
     school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at 
     that evangelical Christian university for three years, until 
     the law school was sold to Liberty University, in Lynchburg, 
     Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty 
     members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I 
     decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma.
       Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind 
     of character attack on women and men who complain of 
     harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to 
     assail their accusers' credibility, detractors routinely 
     diminish people's professional contributions. Often the 
     accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the 
     complaining employee's work as ``mediocre'' or the employee 
     as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also 
     often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre 
     caricatures of themselves--oversensitive, even fanatical, and 
     often immoral--even though they enjoy good and productive 
     working relationships with their colleagues.
       Finally, when attacks on the accusers' credibility fail, 
     those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level 
     of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will 
     believe their accusers' versions of events, individuals 
     confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce 
     legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or ``slights'' 
     that should be dismissed without discussion.
       Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when 
     employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators 
     and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and 
     less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in 
     power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if 
     a sitting justice's vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication 
     discourages others from standing up for their rights.
       The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the 
     Supreme Court is no longer on the table--it was settled by 
     the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we 
     will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My 
     belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to 
     making the resolution of these issues an honest search for 
     the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal 
     inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas's latest fusillade 
     will not divert us from that path.

                          ____________________